[jlduan]

It is overly simplification. I think the sentiment in China is really not about supporting Russia; it is about anti-US.

Because quite a lot of people in China think US is organizing an Eastern NATO, to "destabilize" the whole region. For example, the nuclear-powered marine deal with Australia, etc. Biden’s first year was much harsher on China than Russia.

In 1999, NATO bombed the Chinese embassy, killing 3, that certainly did not help.

[Gravityloss]

Eastern NATO? Sounds like something many smaller countries in the region would love to join, to secure each other against a large expansionistic neighboring country.

[jlduan]

It might come as a surprise to you. But a lot of countries in Asia consider US and China are both bullies.

Just look how many Asia countries joined the US-lead economic sanction/coercion. Very few.

[Gravityloss]

Yeah, so why does the US have to be involved? The countries could co-operate on their own?

[t-3]

Doesn't work if they don't have nukes. Maybe India can play daddy?

[Gravityloss]

even with conventional weapons, taking on three countries should be a lot higher threshold than one...

[trevorboaconstr]

Well, I hope they are smart in hedging their bets.

[uranusjr]

> I think the sentiment in China is really not about supporting Russia; it is about anti-US.

Anti-US is a part of it, but from what I know, Chinese people do generally like Russia a lot more than most of the world. I think it’s kind of a culture and history thing, education is likely a big part. Chinese tend to favour Russia by default for many things, even if the US isn’t involved. The US involvement (perceived or not) definitely still contributes a lot to the general sentiment in this particular case, of course.

[dragonwriter]

> Because quite a lot of people in China think US is organizing an Eastern NATO, to "destabilize" the whole region.

We had one of those, it was called SEATO. There's been only negative progress since on that front.

> For example, the nuclear-powered marine deal with Australia

AUKUS involved countries already in NATO-like agreements with the US (UK is in NATO, Australia in ANZUS) so it doesn't really change much in terms of security alignment.

[sofixa]

> AUKUS involved countries already in NATO-like agreements with the US (UK is in NATO, Australia in ANZUS) so it doesn't really change much in terms of security alignment.

It does, because it pissed off France ( which also has territory in the Pacific) for no good reason, and also stated that the choice of nuclear subs is due to the Chinese threat. And also it pushed the delivery date of new Australian submarines by at least a decade, probably more.

[thaumasiotes]

> Because quite a lot of people in China think US is organizing an Eastern NATO, to "destabilize" the whole region.

It probably doesn't help that this was a stated goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

[dragonwriter]

> It probably doesn't help that this was a stated goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

No it wasn't, and TPP had no security provisions at all.

[stjohnswarts]

Yeah it's really just a giant trade agreement. The US was an idiot for backing out.

[meowfly]

There were a lot of good reasons to be against the TPP; particularly in regards to IP. The EFF who has been a consistent and well guided voice on this issue was firmly against it[1].

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

[notacoward]

> organizing an Eastern NATO, to "destabilize" the whole region

SEATO used to exist, and had the exact opposite effect. The destabilizing influence is an expansionist PRC.